Ex Parte Billmaier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2017

13463983 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/463,983 05/04/2012 STEFAN BIT I .MATER A-5190 3912
24131 7590 02/15/2017
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, EL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
HINZE, LEO T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket @ paten tusa. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEFAN BILLMAIER and WERNER HUBER
Appeal 2016-001929
Application 13/463,983
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Altenbach (U.S. 7,812,853 B2, issued Oct. 12, 2010), and
of claims 9, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Altenbach.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Real Party in Interest is stated to be Heidelberger Druckmaschinen
Aktiengesellschaft of Heidelberg, Germany (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2016-001929
Application 13/463,983
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention:
1. A method for determining setting errors in a sheet-fed
printing press having a control system, the method comprising
the following steps:
recording a geometry of a printed sheet running through
the printing press with an imaging system having a camera or a
line sensor and comparing the recorded geometry with intended
geometries for evaluation in the control system running a
diagnostic program for automatically identifying setting errors;
orienting the imaging system substantially perpendicular
to a sheet surface and at least partly registering visible contours
of sheet edges; and
calculating setting errors using the diagnostic program
by comparing the measured deviations of the sheet edges in
relation to intended contours, as to at least one of the following
setting errors in printing units of the printing press:
faulty sheet transfer due to incorrect setting of
grippers transporting the sheet,
excessive lifting of the sheet off an impression
cylinder due to incorrect setting of blown air for sheet
guidance, or
incorrect radius of the impression cylinder or of a
blanket cylinder.
(Emphasis added).
Appellants present arguments focusing on independent claim 1 (see
App. Br., generally). As such, claim 1 is the focus of the appeal, with all of
the claims standing or falling together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability.
Having done so, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports
the Examiner’s finding that the claimed subject matter of representative
2
Appeal 2016-001929
Application 13/463,983
claim 1 is anticipated by Altenbach within the meaning of § 102. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in
the Final Action and Answer, including the Examiner’s Response to
Argument section, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
“[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” Id.
Appellants’ main arguments are that Altenbach does not identify
setting errors (App. Br. 5); does not record the geometry of a printed sheet as
claimed and compare with intended geometries {Id. at 5, 6); and does not
teach “assigning the detected setting error to one of several specifically
named setting errors” {Id. at 6). These arguments are not persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation finding.
As aptly pointed out by the Examiner, the claim does not require
assigning the setting error to one of the three listed setting errors {e.g., Ans.
9, 10). See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of
appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on
limitations appearing in the claims.”). Contrary to Appellants’ position, we
agree with the Examiner that the plain language of the claim only requires
that “at least one” of the three named setting errors be calculated and thus be
encompassed by the applied prior art {e.g., Ans. 7, 8)
3
Appeal 2016-001929
Application 13/463,983
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
determination that Altenbach’s system does indeed identify a setting error,
such as gripper setting (e.g., Ans. 5) and that “recording a geometry of a
printed sheet” as recited in claim 1 encompasses Altenbach’s light and
camera taking a photo of the sheet. Furthermore, contrary to Appellants’
position (Reply Br. 3), one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
inferred that Altenbach encompasses calculating the error due to faulty
gripper settings (e.g., col. 5,11. 60—64 (explaining that adjustment of grippers
is included); see also col. 2,11. 40-45). In re Preda, 401 F. 2d 825, 826
(CCPA 1968) (In determining whether a reference anticipates the subject
matter recited in a claim, “it is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.'1'’ (emphasis added))
Appellants also contend that Altenbach does not teach that its imaging
system is substantially perpendicular to the printed sheet’s surface (App. Br.
7,8). The current claim language only requires that the imaging system be
oriented “substantially perpendicular” to the sheet surface. Appellants have
not directed us to any specific standard for “substantially” in the
Specification. The claim language does not exclude Altenbach’s orientation
(see Ans. 6, 11).
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
position (Ans. generally). Notably, Appellants have not directed our
attention to any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that
the Examiner’s interpretation of the language of claim 1 is unreasonable
(including that only one “setting error” of the three named errors needs to be
calculated), nor to any portion of the Specification that limits the definition
4
Appeal 2016-001929
Application 13/463,983
of “substantially” perpendicular to exclude the orientation of Altenbach’s
imaging system, as pointed out by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. No
further substantive arguments were made regarding the § 103 rejection.
Thus, we also affirm the § 103 rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5